Organising Committee reply to Mulrennan

This letter has been written in reply to the attacks, made by Patrick Mulrennan, on certain members of the organising committee. First of all, we would like to point out that Patrick did not attend the first organising meeting where these issues were discussed, or several of the subsequent meetings. He was however present at Tuesday's organisation meeting where slogans for the banners were decided.

It was agreed at that meeting (consisting of approx. 35 people) that the main slogans for the banners should be first "Oppose the Royal Commission Legislation" and second "Abortion—a democratic right". It was also pointed out at the meeting that the Vic Women's choice Club has a sufficient number of banners and placards with the slogan, "A Woman's right to choose". At no time throughout the meeting was any objection raised to the slogan "A woman's right to choose". We also hold strongly to that slogan but that does not mean we will not raise the wider questions of abortion being a democratic right.

We feel that these slogans rather than contradict each other, (as Patrick would have us believe) are of a complementary nature and increase the understanding of those taking part in the abortion struggle.

This whole question of abortion being a democratic right was discussed at an open forum on Women's Rights in the Union Hall with the following resolution being passed........

Action should also try to incorporate all other groups and people who are opposed to the Government attacks."

It is perhaps revealing that Patrick states "Even if I had agreed with the slogan . . . ." Though Patrick did not openly state his opposition to this motion (only one person dissented), it seems that his main objection is the linkage between the recent attacks of the Government on women and other such attacks on the civil liberties of New Zealanders e.g. the SIS Bill and last year's industrial legislation.

Unfortunately Patrick has a politically naive view of 'democratic rights' i.e. "the popular view of democratic rights is that they refer to the rights of free speech, organisation". What Patrick fails to appreciate is that at present the state dictates to women whether they can have an abortion or not. If the state needs more children then it restricts abortions, regardless of the rights of the woman. We feel that it should be a democratic right of the women to decide, in effect "a woman's right to choose".

Why do we feel it is so important to stress the work "democratic"? At the moment the Government has and is trying to restrict the democratic rights of New Zealanders. The attacks on women are not an isolated event (as Patrick Mulrennan would have you believe). It is not because the Government is feeling particularly nasty towards women—it is deeper than that.

As The Sunday Times put it—The country is in an economic mess. The solution as this particular paper saw it was to clamp down on workers and the so-called bludgers of our community e.g. solo mothers. The government, in order to survive, must restrict the democratic rights of New Zealanders—hence workers no longer have the right to strike and if the SIS Bill gets through at least, our lives will no longer be private, and at most, our freedom to protest will be taken away.

The restrictions on women's democratic rights should be seen in this context. Recently the Evening Post quoted Mr Gill as saying that the fundamental role of women was in the home as mother and wife. When unemployment is high women are pushed back into the home. Thus, statements like Mr Gill's are not as isolated phenomena, they are in part tied to the country's economic trends. The current abortion legislation can also be seen in this context—a woman should want to be a mother and not a breadwinner. By limiting the abortion struggle we are in fact hiding the real facts about the situation.

There are a few other inaccuracies in Patrick's letter, e.g.—he says, "A poster (NZUSA poster) which displayed the policy of NZUSA was altered to display the opinion of the NZUSA officers who produced it". This was a reference to the use of a photo, the head banner of which stated "A woman's ritht to choose", and which was replaced by "Abortion a Democratic Right".

The poster was, in fact, produced by the 2nd Research Officer, Dave Macpherson in consultation with several people from the Vic Organizing committee and all the National Officer. The photos and slogans were decided by this group after the first organising committee meeting. On the question of it being NZUSA policy; it would be advisable if Patrick referred to the preliminary minutes of last August Council. In the Women's Commission and at final plenary the following motion was passed.

WR. 22

It is interesting to note that at the recent National Exec, meeting, the question concerning the poster was raised. It was pointed out and agreed by those at the meeting that the poster was in accordance with a consistant stand taken by NZUSA, that the abortion issue was also a civil liberties issue. It was agreed that NZUSA publicity was quite within its policy and certainly not in contradiction as Patrick Mulrennan has asserted.

Finally we would like to point out that writing such letters serves only to split the unity of our movement and plays into the hands of organisations such as SPUC. We were not enthusiastic to reply but felt that the obvious attempt to discredit the organisation of the demonstration could not go unanswered.